Reducing 'misogyny' to mean a negative view of women is simplistic at best, manipulative at worst. Misogyny is a far more nuanced concept, and I don't mean tha

Reducing 'misogyny' to mean a negative view of women is simplistic at best, manipulative at worst. Misogyny is a far more nuanced concept, and I don't mean that to say it's difficult to understand, though the author this article seemed to miss it. If I state that 'women should be homemakers' I'm being misogynistic but not making a negative statement, in fact I'm implying that women are good at that task. And by exclusion I'm implying that men are bad at it. You can absolutely argue that there's an element of misandry even in that statement, but it comes from systemic misogyny and the exclusion of men from certain socially gendered roles in society. The world is in the middle of a reaction to systemic misogyny, and that means a lot of pushback against the toxic masculinity that creates that misogyny but also holds men back from equal roles in their own right. It's foolish to say we've switched over to a generally misandrist society already when we're so far away from quality still. It's going to take generations to fix wage gaps, clear aging C-suites of old men, and get over the gimmicky appeal of people like Trump and Andrew Tate. If that comes with a lot of men-bashing and baiting, then it's probably well-deserved.